To be honest, I'll think it's interesting to try out the theory that they may have framed him. And then compare his story with that of Michael Brown of Ferguson, who lots of people argue was set up. And I ought to explain, you know some of my experiences, I haven't gone and said everything, but there was a time when people were manipulating me and telling me. Well, never mind. I'm embarrassed to disclose certain details. I mean, I played along but I knew they were full of it. They had no intentions of turning me into a porn star. Like I knew they were just trying to set me up, but I played along so I could go document what they were doing -- and I did document it. And yeah, sure enough, at some point they want me to do X, Y, and Z -- which wasn't exactly what Michael Brown did right before he was killed, but was sort of similar. And, let me put it this way, I got a good amount of really valuable proof so it was worth it for me to play gullible for awhile. But, still, there were some real life porn stars who chatted me up and went all out trying to be so friendly to me, and then someone poses as some kind of porn exec, and ..... really, I don't want to talk about it. 

Look. Michael Brown was about to embark on an illustrious career in the music industry, where I presume he thought he was going to be making music videos or something. Then he is seen going and robbing a store. However, he didn't try to rob them for any significant amount of money. He just robbed them for cigars. Then afterwards he gets into some altercation with cops and is killed by a cop. And then all the weird sorts of irregular things the police did afterwards -- I don't remember them but a ton of news outlets reported that police handled the aftermath in some very odd ways that tends to put them under a cloud of suspicion. 

Let me put it this way. I sort of wonder if some of Michael Brown's alleged "music industry" friends all interested in helping him might not have been the ones to put him up to that store robbery -- telling him that everyone who is to have a career in the music industry needs to go through an initiation rite, or they could have even said it was some kind of audition. And then he goes and does all that because they manipulated him to -- and it's all a trap. Let me put it this way. That is EXACTLY what some people tried to do to me -- and it didn't work. 

There is actually a whole set of documentation I was able to capture -- including some which shows them sending me emails on this hook up site, emails where they were trying to prompt me into saying things that could make me look like I was either trying to buy or sell drugs. Oh and this was a hook up site that was commonly known to be monitored by the FBI -- aka, if emails went back and forth between you and someone else which made it look like you were a drug dealer, or drug user, that could later on be used as "proof" in some set up against you. And, what did I do? I'd start to let myself go along with the way they were prompting me, and then I would start having second thoughts and start sending emails where I said "hold on, you are trying to make me say things that make me sound like I am a drug dealer, and I don't feel comfortable doing it." And, after I sent such emails, I can prove a computer hacker went and would seconds later delete them from a sent mail folder which, at the time, emails could never be deleted from. They'd stay there for fifteen days and then delete automatically, but no one could delete them like that. I started hitting "print screen" and saved them to microsoft word, so when they were deleted from that folder anyway, I could prove they had originally existed.

And, suppose Elliot Rodgers were framed -- it would be done by people somehow attempting to convince him, I dunno, there are all sorts of ways you can convince someone to do a tape like that and say it is some kind of audition. Let me put it this way. It is a tactic that is used. And it’s one I am very familiar with. And, there are articles out there that talk about FBI abuse and unethical behavior that is nearly this bad.

But this is all very complicated and dense. I could go do a complicated presentation, that is good and explains it coherently and in a well organized, easy-to-understand way. But it would be long and involved, and I have PTSD and hate thinking about it. I am not going to do it by myself.

dmschlom:

Yeah but feminists are used to having so much monopoly power over the media, even when they facts don't support their beliefs, they go fudge the facts and pretend they do. And, the way most readers are, they forget about everything but what's been spoon fed them in the most simplistic way. And feminists' strategy is always to try to sway the uninformed with distorted arguments. And they know they aren't going to reach the type of person who goes and is thorough enough about paying attention to the news so he is going to THINK and use his BRAIN and notice how so many of the details about Rodgers background doesn't conform with the feminist narrative. 

There are lots of areas where they undercut themselves -- and any informed reader will see feminists undercut themselves with their own facts. 

Their idiocy with the wage gap fake statistics and rape statistics gives their opponents so much ammunition, it's one of the stupidest things feminists could do -- yet they do it anyway. All they care about is how it plays with stupid gullible people

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

Why would you, as an MRA, want to attempt to discourage someone from questioning whether the "official story" of the Elliot Roger's case -- which heavily seemed to buttress the feminist narrative -- might have been fake?

Maxx:

That's because it's DOESN'T heavily buttress the feminist narrative that's why.

It CHALLENGES it. 

In ways that are EMBRASSING for anyone that promotes of supports 'the feminist narrative'.

In ways that required major DAMAGE CONTROL. In ways that required entire aspects of the case to be massively down played or omitted from mainstream discourse (like the fact that he was half asian and killed more men than women for example.)

That's why someone smart enough to 'fake it' as absurdly as you suggest wouldn't at the same time have been dumb enough pick their mark this badly.

He wasn't a pua he was an anti-pua...like most feminists.

He wasn't a right winger he was left winger...like most feminists.

He wasn't a traditionalist or a conservative he was a liberal and a progressive...like most feminists.

He wasn't religious he was secular...like most feminists.

He wasn't an MRA....he wasn't white...

He was on a ton of psychoactive drugs and he had been in therapy for years.

If you wanted to frame someone in order to 'buttress the feminist narrative' the liberal progressive half-asian son of a movie director who ends up killing more men than women and doesn't even manage to kill any 'hot chicks' would be an AWFUL AWFUL choice of mark.

If these people are so smart then how the fuck could they be so dumb at the same time?

Question things by all means but your theory simply doesn't hold up to logic and reason.

edit note

Last edited by Maxx; Today at 08:06 PM.

[QUOTE=dmschlom;135078]Why would you, as an MRA, want to attempt to discourage someone from questioning whether the "official story" of the Elliot Roger's case -- which heavily seemed to buttress the feminist narrative -- might have been fake?[/QUOTE]

Jonesey505 

S

Seriously, dmschlom why do you have to ruin perfectly good threads with pages of utter nonesense?

Quote Originally Posted by dmschlom View Post
Well, yeah it's true most people would be a bit suspicious if asked to do videos like that -- except, notice his last video. he is obviously reading from a teleprompter, looking to the side every few seconds. Who is feeding him his lines? The speech was long enough so it couldn't all have been written down on one page. He would have had to have cue cards -- and then put one down and picked another one up. Or a several page statement written in large letters, but you'd see him do more than just looking to the side, you'd have to have heard him rustling pages. There were no page turns -- which there should have been, unless it was a teleprompter, but if there was a teleprompter, doesn't someone have to pace things so the lines get fed to him at the right speed? Or did he do it himself? Why did the New York Times not report "it appears he was reading from a prepared statement in that video" and then inquire as to whether cops FOUND the written statement, or found a teleprompter, assuming that was what he used? THAT'S FISHY.

......
Maxx:

NOTHING is fishy about it. You are fishing. Badly. And i don't think this sort of wild speculation is a fruitful avenue to go down but each to his own.

============

dmschlom:

Hold on one minute. Where is the video? Are you telling me that Elliot Rodgers wasn't constantly pausing in his statement, looking to the left because he needs to READ MORE, and then looking back to the right to continue his statement? 

What's your position on the Elliot Rodgers video? Did he memorize that whole speech? Or did he read it from a prepared statement? 

You are telling me that I am "fishing." Well, last time I ever went fishing was when I was a teenager and my grandfather took me fishing on his boat near where he lived by the ocean. And that was over 20 years ago.I haven't gone fishing in 20 years. Telling me I am going fishing is not a response. 

You also use the words "wild speculation."

You did not need to use the word "wild." If my statement was "wild," you could let it speak for itself. 

As for the rest of what you say, you are trying to tell me that "they" -- I don't know who "they" is -- seem not to have a motive you could understand for framing such an individual. But, you see, I am not claiming per se that anyone DID frame him. I am merely questioning whether or not they might have. And, if they did, how they could have gone about it. Some of the facts of the case allow for that to be a plausible interpretation. Some of the facts of the Michael Brown case in ferguson also allow for a similar plausible interpretation which has a few striking parallels, but I am not interested in exploring that issue here. A lot of people claim Michael Brown was set up. If he wasn't, all I know is the police did a whole bunch of really strange stuff in that case -- enough so they deserve to be considered NOT TRUSTWORTHY. 

Under the assumption that the police -- and the mainstream media, including the New York Times -- are NOT TRUSTWORTHY, I really would withhold judgment on the whole Rodgers thing until I knew all the facts. Which, of course, I don't. Maybe it was reported later on, the whole issue of how Elliot Rodger could have been narrating his video from a prepared statement. In an ordinary case reported in the media like that, the media would report that it appeared it made the video reading from a prepared statement, that cops looked for the statement, and that they either found it or didn't. And that they tried to investigate or figure out whether he had third party accomplices. Part of the process of determining whether he did it by himself, or had help, would have been an investigation as to whether or not someone was HOLDING the written statement he was reading from up for him to see or not. How long did it take for cops to figure out Elliot Rodgers was acting alone? 

I have been paying close attention to Naomi Wolf's Facebook page where she has been noticing, of late, and pointing out, of late, that there seem to be a lot of irregular stuff and unreliable media coverage out there. For instance, she argued some of the ISIS videos may have been fabricated, and criticized the New York Times and other media outlets for failing to show sufficient skepticism in the matter. Later on, I think it's been acknowledged that some of them were fake. With all that in mind, I am simply noticing, they failed to report on whether or not Elliot Rodger appeared to be reading from a prepared statement or teleprompter in his last statement, in which case thorough reporting would have asked, was any such thing found? 

So I am questioning things. It's speculation of course -- but not wild speculation.

[QUOTE=dubs;135072]Schlom, it's not all a vast conspiracy.

People aren't that smart.

And the ones that are, have better things to do.[/QUOTE]

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

I agree with everything you said in your analysis -- except what I am saying is not guff. Nor does it contradict what I am suspecting.

Maxx:

 

Yes it does contradict what you are saying. 

Because everything I'm saying explains EXACTLY how and why Elliot Rodgers went 'off the deep end' of his own accord.
 

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

Yes, it is quite true, Rodgers could have gone off the deep end, gotten really angry, and decided to "get revenge" and so on and so forth. It strikes me, it's more likely he would have not done a huge big "production" like that on his own but done something much more personal, which would not have been a high profile show but something that looked like an attempt to get revenge on just one or two individuals he felt REALLY upset over. What he did -- even if he knew what he was doing and intended to -- is something I find unlikely for him or someone else to have done without the encouragement or collusion of others.

Maxx:

 

This is just wild speculation on your part. He didn't do a 'huge production' for starters. And there is nothing he did that requires the 'collusion of others'.

Also he killed a bunch of dudes he lived then ran down and shot a couple of people (most of them men) before getting taken down.
 

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

However, everything you say about Elliot Rodgers would have made him far more susceptible to being set up and framed in the manner in which I suggest could have happened. He is not taught "game" -- he is not taught the social tools he needs to get people to treat him like a social equal, to give him the time of day, etc., and so forth. He is kept ignorant.

Maxx:

Why the hell would anyone 'frame' Elliot Rodgers?

Nothing you are suggesting makes an sense whatsoever. 

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

But, anyway, back to Elliot Rodgers. He knows no game, people do not treat him normally, he is shunned. This makes him easy pickings for anyone who might want to set him up. All they'd have to do is, remember everyone is shunning him -- a few people can go say they are head honchos in Hollywood, with connections, influence, they want to make him a star (whatever promises they tell, they can have a story) and they are suddenly unusually nice to him, treat him nicely in a way he is not used to, and he is putty in their hands and will be willing to do whatever they want him to do, not suspecting.

Maxx:

 

No one set him up. People smart enough to set someone up in the absurd manner you suggest would be smart enough to pick a better target...

Rodgers loathed game and puas...anyone trying to set him up to smear these groups could have picked a target who didn't.
Rodgers shunned Men's rights and subscribed to liberal progressive news sources like Young Turks and Colbert Report...again people trying to smear or shun MRAs or the MRM would have been smart enough to pick say an AvFM member or someone actually connected to the groups they might wish to smear. Libertarians. People who actually expose actual shady government dealings. 

Rodgers father was a militant atheist who blew much of his fortune making a documentary attacking the church. If this was a set up by statists (in the government or part of the government or whatever) wouldn't they have set up someone that was actually affliated the church rather than someone who was so focused on a personal secularist crusade against it that he took his eye off the ball while his son decended into insanity?
 

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

Well, yeah it's true most people would be a bit suspicious if asked to do videos like that -- except, notice his last video. he is obviously reading from a teleprompter, looking to the side every few seconds. Who is feeding him his lines? The speech was long enough so it couldn't all have been written down on one page. He would have had to have cue cards -- and then put one down and picked another one up. Or a several page statement written in large letters, but you'd see him do more than just looking to the side, you'd have to have heard him rustling pages. There were no page turns -- which there should have been, unless it was a teleprompter, but if there was a teleprompter, doesn't someone have to pace things so the lines get fed to him at the right speed? Or did he do it himself? Why did the New York Times not report "it appears he was reading from a prepared statement in that video" and then inquire as to whether cops FOUND the written statement, or found a teleprompter, assuming that was what he used? THAT'S FISHY.

 

Maxx:

NOTHING is fishy about it. You are fishing. Badly. And i don't think this sort of wild speculation is a fruitful avenue to go down but each to his own.
 

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

is, the way it works, lack of "game" could both mean he might have snapped and done something -- except wouldn't he have done something more on the spur of the moment? More impulsive? Out of anger? But it also could have made him be simply way too easily manipulated by others. 

So, what I'm saying isn't guff. But everything else you say, I totally agree with.

Maxx:

What are you talking about? Why would he have done something more 'spur of the moment' or 'more impulsive'? Are insane people known for being predictable and doing spur of the moment things? Where are you getting this from?

Have you read his manifesto? Are you suggesting it's fake too?

No one would manipulate Elliot Rodgers into doing these things because a guy like HIM doing things isn't part of the plan. If they'd set up a libertarian MRA NRA member and regular church goer there might be a shred of logic of reason behind what you are saying, but there isn't. 

You can't agree with what I'm saying because what I'm saying is that if you simply join the dots everything that happened in this case MAKES PERFECT SENSE. 

There isn't any mystery to any of it.

All the issues raised in my blog posts converged to create a perfect storm that makes perfect sense.

There is no need to reach the way you are. 

Sometimes the shoe simply doesn't fit.

If someone in the government wanted to 'frame' someone for this Elliot Rogers...son of a hollywood liberal, half-asian raised as a miliant atheist secular progressive, fan of the young turks...anti-pua...anti-mra

...would be the WORST possible candidate for framing.

If these people are smart enough to pull off the absurd set up you suggest they'd not be dumb enough to pick Elliot Rodger as their mark.

Last edited by Maxx; Today at 06:00 PM.

 

 Originally Posted by Maxx 

Please quit with the guff.

The case of Elliot Rodgers is really rather easily explained without elaborating to such absurd nonsense...

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/entry...-(Part-1-of-2)
 

dmschlom:

Oh, and there is another issue with "game." Or whatever you want to call it. It's not inherently human. The "tricks of the trade" and what you have to do in order to be "one of the cool kids" and be treated like an equal are not inherent. They are constructed for each culture. Which can be horribly degraded. And a very interesting book to read would be Tocqueville's The French Revolution, where he discusses just how much the regime degraded the population -- the ancient regime AND the new regime which he considered to be only a worsening of the previous problems. 

That's the thing, though. The "game" people need to be taught to function in today's culture is very toxic. The despicable things all the "cool kids" must do to various "outsiders" in and of themselves degrades those who are allegedly not the degraded ones, not the picked on ones, not the bullied ones. Anyone who has any sense of honor or nobility has to totally sacrifice it and engage in behavior they know to be utterly despicable, crass, ugly, disgusting and atrocious towards others. Rampant dishonesty, negativity, nastiness are the rules in many cases. 

You are required to degrade yourself, or be degraded, is the way it works in many ways. And the question, ultimately, becomes who really is sacrificing their own dignity? The abused? Or the abusers?

 Originally Posted by Maxx 

Please quit with the guff.

The case of Elliot Rodgers is really rather easily explained without elaborating to such absurd nonsense...

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/entry...-(Part-1-of-2)

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/entry...-(part-2-of-2)

--------------

dmschlom:

Oh oh oh yes. And as regards the whole tactic of using women to control other slaves, and subduing the women by murdering a male child or relative, while this was discussed on a video that was posted on AVFM, my parents actually mentioned that tactic to me sometime when I was growing up. Though what was much more chilling, or sad, which they would tell me about way more often, was how in certain slavery situations where conditions were exceptionally harsh, parents who were slaves would often be forced to choose one child who they would be allowed to give all the support to necessary in order for the child to thrive, even while they would be forced to abandon the rest to the devices (use, abuse, sacrifice) of the world.

I agree with everything you said in your analysis -- except what I am saying is not guff. Nor does it contradict what I am suspecting. 

Yes, it is quite true, Rodgers could have gone off the deep end, gotten really angry, and decided to "get revenge" and so on and so forth. It strikes me, it's more likely he would have not done a huge big "production" like that on his own but done something much more personal, which would not have been a high profile show but something that looked like an attempt to get revenge on just one or two individuals he felt REALLY upset over. What he did -- even if he knew what he was doing and intended to -- is something I find unlikely for him or someone else to have done without the encouragement or collusion of others. 

However, back to your points about "game." Yeah I know all about what they do. Feminists vilify game -- even while they learn it better than anyone else, and they themselves associate, as equals, only with men who have good "game," and they will only relate to someone socially ignorant if it is to use them, abuse them, or manipulate them. 

And, lack of game with Elliot Rodgers is exactly the same as what Tocqueville described regarding how Americans would keep black slaves ignorant and not wise to the ways of the world, socially, all so as to ensure they could be easily manipulated, used, abused, taken advantage of, etc. This phenomenon is what Tocqueville referred to when he said, absolutely for sure, even when slavery is formally ended and blacks made officially equal in the eye of the law, they will continue to horribly mistreat and horribly oppress blacks, often in very invisible ways. This issue we are talking about pertains to the workings of not official government but shadow government. The way it works, if you can figure out how to ensure a huge sub population is made to be ignorant and not taught the ways of the world, yeah you can abuse them and manipulate them and make it look like it is their fault.

However, everything you say about Elliot Rodgers would have made him far more susceptible to being set up and framed in the manner in which I suggest could have happened. He is not taught "game" -- he is not taught the social tools he needs to get people to treat him like a social equal, to give him the time of day, etc., and so forth. He is kept ignorant. 

I am reminded of this video I saw on avfm a long time ago that talked about how, when they enslaved whole families, the way they would get them to cooperate with the enslavement is they would work with the women, get the women to do all of the controlling. And the way they would subdue a woman and bend her to their will would be to kill one of her loved ones, one of her children, in front of her, so that she would know they were serious -- and then they could trust her afterwards to raise the children in such ways so they would be ignorant and easily manipulated, easily abused, etc. Tocqueville was very clear -- blacks slaves were to be kept ignorant. 

I also think, to be honest, such strategies were used not only on black slaves, but other immigrants as well. The AVFM video I remember listening to say, the fact that these were the tactics used are often not talked about and these tactics hail from Ancient Rome. 

But, anyway, back to Elliot Rodgers. He knows no game, people do not treat him normally, he is shunned. This makes him easy pickings for anyone who might want to set him up. All they'd have to do is, remember everyone is shunning him -- a few people can go say they are head honchos in Hollywood, with connections, influence, they want to make him a star (whatever promises they tell, they can have a story) and they are suddenly unusually nice to him, treat him nicely in a way he is not used to, and he is putty in their hands and will be willing to do whatever they want him to do, not suspecting. 

Well, yeah it's true most people would be a bit suspicious if asked to do videos like that -- except, notice his last video. he is obviously reading from a teleprompter, looking to the side every few seconds. Who is feeding him his lines? The speech was long enough so it couldn't all have been written down on one page. He would have had to have cue cards -- and then put one down and picked another one up. Or a several page statement written in large letters, but you'd see him do more than just looking to the side, you'd have to have heard him rustling pages. There were no page turns -- which there should have been, unless it was a teleprompter, but if there was a teleprompter, doesn't someone have to pace things so the lines get fed to him at the right speed? Or did he do it himself? Why did the New York Times not report "it appears he was reading from a prepared statement in that video" and then inquire as to whether cops FOUND the written statement, or found a teleprompter, assuming that was what he used? THAT'S FISHY. 

Still, bottom line is, the way it works, lack of "game" could both mean he might have snapped and done something -- except wouldn't he have done something more on the spur of the moment? More impulsive? Out of anger? But it also could have made him be simply way too easily manipulated by others. 

So, what I'm saying isn't guff. But everything else you say, I totally agree with.

" Originally Posted by dmschlom 

You might notice, I have pointed out that I think it looks a hell of a lot like the whole Elliot Rogers thing was a set up and he was framed."

 

 

Please quit with the guff.

The case of Elliot Rodgers is really rather easily explained without elaborating to such absurd nonsense...

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/entry...-(Part-1-of-2)

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/entry...-(part-2-of-2)

Last edited by Maxx; Today at 01:43 PM.

[QUOTE=Mequa;134903]I've been there, on the receiving end of it. Disgust is too mild a term. I know what it feels like to hate another human being so strongly that I would wish for their death.

...[/QUOTE]

You know, I hope you read my previous post I wrote right before I responded to this. Because what you say here just struck me. You might notice, I have pointed out that I think it looks a hell of a lot like the whole Elliot Rogers thing was a set up and he was framed. Some people said witnesses saw other people in his car when he was allegedly shooting people (which means it could have been other people who shot people, killed him, and then police could fake that it was really him who did it). Yet, if you look at his last video, what you can instantly see is, he was reading from a teleprompter -- which does suggest someone was feeding him his lines. And his position in Hollywood would have made it very easy for him to be manipulated by people into making those videos merely because they could tell him they were thinking of turning him into an ACTOR and this was all an audition for some part. 

Well, I am starting to wonder about the treatment I have been receiving at the hands of the gay community lately -- extra provocative in so many ways, like really designed to make me get more and more angry and start to express it too. And I am reminded of one particular article I remember reading where someone who knew some of Elliot Rogers peers said that some of them even speculated that their treatment of him might lead to a massacre or something, aka the cruelty. Read this, for instance:

[url]http://www.laurieacouture.com/2014/06/in-the-aftermath-of-the-elliot-rodger-tragedy-society-is-still-ignoring-the-real-causes-of-youth-violence/[/url]

However, to be honest, all they need to do in an instance like this is to merely pick on someone enough so he gets very disgruntled, extremely disgusted, and starts expressing himself and about it. 

And then once they have done that, then they can go have the FBI go and shoot a bunch of people, including the victim, but frame the victim for it. 

And you might recall from my website, how this Pete from cape cod told me the mafia was going to shut me up in writing -- and his friend told me it will all be over soon and higher level government agencies were involved? Here you can read it here: 

This one:

[url]http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/image/156852235[/url]

And this one (right afterwards): [url]http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/image/156852343[/url]

Well, there is more to it than just that, but I have left it out for now. 

These emails were nasty emails they sent me after the following occurred. 

I had visited this Pete man, and he pretty much held me captive for a day and a night, not locked in but he intimidated me and told me I'd be killed if I left the cape and he said I needed to give him $1000 or I'd get killed. He insisted on the money the previous night and I stalled him by saying any money I have won't clear or there is some limit so I have to wait til the following day. I ended up spending the night at his apartment, which was a basement apartment he rented from some men, and he slept while one of the men upstairs literally stayed awake all night and paced back and forth, all apparently to keep me from sneaking out and leaving. The next day I withdrew the money, but I was afraid of being set up, so before I withdrew the money I said I had to go to the bathroom and, in the bathroom, I sent the email to my mother which is pictured in the following gallery "I mist pay $1000 or be killed" so I'd have a record that I wasn't PAYING someone voluntarily. 

It was a few days after, that Pete started calling me up and wanted to talk to me -- and I refused to talk until I had driven to my mothers where I felt safe (and where I'd be talking on the phone in front of a witness) and that's when he started to try to have a conversation with me where he wanted to change the story around. He said "that money you paid me -- you paid it to me in order to receive the protection of the mafia" and then I said "no I didn't, you said I'd be killed if I didn't pay you that money." And the moment i started saying "no I didn't," a huge amount of static suddenly started appearing on the phone line (it actually sounded like a ton of bricks falling or a train going by making a VERY loud noise), and also the same thing happened when I also said, on the phone out loud, how I noticed that before I left my apartment, some individual who was there appeared to have left some white stuff on my bed which looked like drugs. Same thing too -- suddenly when I start saying that, the static/noise drowned my voice out. And then I ask him "what's that noise?" and he says "I don't know" and that's when I said "I know what you are doing, you are recording me and trying to drown out any parts of the recording where I say something that you don't want to hear." 

And then he and the other guys who were there (there were many) got very angry and started yelling at me. 

So, yeah, the FBI definitely does stuff like that. You may recall how there are articles out there that talk about how the FBI goes and sometimes entraps innocent people who aren't intending to commit any kind of crime. It's a bit worse than merely using a lot of manipulation and peer pressure to try to get someone to look like they are about to commit a crime. They literally will go sometimes commit the crime for them and frame them for it afterwards, or in the process. Like literally arrange for the person who is to be set up be kidnapped while they commit the murder, and then afterwards the real perpetrators go free, and law enforcement makes sure to fake it all. 

Anyway, here are the emails that document what went on with me and that Pete person. Most definitely what he did was a crime of some sorts. Of course, the problem is, if he really was working with the FBI, it was all set up so they could deny any involvement, or at least I cannot prove any involvement. If I had recorded my phone calls, perhaps I could have proven something fishy was going on. But that would have been illegal in Massachusetts. 

[url]http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/emails_suggesting_pete_of_cape_cod_may_have_been_working_with_th[/url]

So, that's the question? If I say anything that makes me sound like an angry person, that puts me in danger of being kidnapped by a bunch of thugs who go shoot a bunch of people, then shoot me and cops all fake that I was the one who did it. Which could very well be what happened with Elliot Rogers. There is some evidence that may have occurred -- and, if you pay attention to the coverage of Elliot Rogers, you will notice the New York Times is negligent in refusing to speculate on how Rogers was obviously reading his last thing from a prepared statement, or from a teleprompter. So the coverage is really lousy.

What I am wondering, though, is, is it possible that the various ways I am being treated not only by gay men online but by other people on websites I comment on, the manner in which it's like extra efforts are made to both irritate me, attack me, make me feel demoralized, even while making my life miserable in other ways: is it possible there are people out there who think, a good way of cleaning up the whole "mess" they made with me is to go murder me in such a way so that they can make me out to be an "Elliot Roger" incident? And, there is a hope I might get angry enough and express it -- therefore they hope they can provoke me into expressing myself in a way so people might think it more plausible? I am afraid one cannot rule that sort of thinking out, with these people.

[QUOTE=Mequa;134903]I've been there, on the receiving end of it. Disgust is too mild a term. I know what it feels like to hate another human being so strongly that I would wish for their death.

As a man, when women have done that to me, I've been shamed as "weak" and a "pussy" for, well, not having a thicker skin, not taking it in my stride, not shaking it off, and not putting my big boy pants on for not shutting my mouth about the behaviour of women who have treated me in exactly that way. You know, for when someone decides to string me along in a manipulative way, prey on my genuine kindness, then slam the knife in my back and gloat about having got away with it.

While painting me as the bad guy who has just got what is coming to him somehow, who clearly hates women and has mommy issues for daring to criticise the behaviour of a female.

And I just got told by a feminist in a chatroom that I am harming women by making a big deal about hatred of men...[/QUOTE]

Oh, by the way, with me it isn't about any one person in particular. It's the whole entire gay community -- the whole gay scene. Hundreds of people at minimum. What I'm realizing is, I always noticed, first of all I am quite attractive, so there should be no reason why I am not popular among SOME sort of crowd. And my personality, also, is very likable. I can tell people genuinely like me when they meet me or get to know me. Still, that did not stop pretty much all gay men from either shunning me, or only meeting up with me to abuse me or otherwise manipulate me. And what's absolutely horrifying is to realize, practically every last one of them knew I was being targeted as part of a criminal scheme -- and they all did their part to manipulate me into situations where I could be abused, and then discard me like a soiled glove afterwards. 

And now, of course, I am being utterly shunned -- and, the odd thing is, I suspect it's because I am alive, I am not going to be murdered, they figured that out, and probably the situation will be something where the perpetrators will be brought to justice in the end. 

Now, you know how it is, for the longest amount of time I sort of was able to be convinced that most gay men perhaps didn't know what was going on, and may have genuinely thought I wasn't a desirable person. Now I realize, they knew all along I was a decent person, etc., and they knew all along that I was being targeted by bad people, and practically every last one of them only jumped at every chance to aid and abet the perpetrators and use me to the max. That is literally true. Given a chance to distance themselves from some of the most despicable, evil, immoral sociopathic abuse -- they all jumped at the chance to participate in it. Or maybe not all -- just a lot. Meanwhile, those who didn't jump at the chance to participate in abuse still did their best to be passive enablers at best. 

I think, the way it is, when things start to turn around for me in such a way so that they can no longer pretend not to know the truth, then they behave like bratty sulky children -- angry that they aren't going to get away with it and trying their best to stick it to me in the nastiest passive aggressive ways they can think of. And that literally is what I am dealing with now. A lot of really nasty games. Fake interest, get me to start to talk to them, then abruptly cut me off. Stuff like that. And what's funny is, I am reminded of someone I talk to occasionally about the situation who kind of hinted to me that she knew "they are being even more evil to you than they were before." Or, in other words, no amount of effort to try to appeal to anyone's good side, to anyone's sense of honor, decency, right or wrong can have any effect on them -- other than to make them act even more evil than they did before.

Every now and then I get treated to a little bit of faux decency -- but laden with a different kind of abuse: passive aggressive sneaky abuse rather than brazen up front obvious abuse. Of course, I think the biggest problem is, there are a large number of gay men as well as crooked cops and all sorts of other powerful people who have done really horrible despicable things to me -- which also include some very serious crimes. And they are all "hooked into" the scene, know a lot of people, and it just works out so gay men know, behave despicably to me, and they will maintain their social standing. Treat me with even a modicum of decency -- and everyone will turn their backs on them and ostracize them. I wonder if that might not be what Hannah Arendt meant when she referred to Eichmann and other Nazis in Nazi Germany as evil in a banal way -- with their motives being solely that they "wanted to belong." 

And another thing that's interesting. Before, every now and then a few guys would treat me semi-normally. And I think that was to try to pull the wool over my eyes and manipulate me into not understanding that I really couldn't trust anyone not to do their damnedest to take advantage of me. You know how it is, you can't completely shun someone if you want to go manipulate that person into putting himself in situations where he can be subjected to all sorts of horrible and evil abuse. Every now and then you have to arrange for someone to give them a glimmer of hope that if they keep trying to meet people, they'll find someone who doesn't abuse them in an evil way. And now nobody treats me normally. But it's sort of like a "we now know you are onto us -- so we aren't going to even bother trying to manipulate you anymore, because we know it won't work." But what that also means is, absolutely no attempt to show even a modicum of decency. It's sort of like the whole gay community knows I am onto them -- and it's not worth it for them to put up even a minimal front of fake decency now. They can drop the act now. 

I mean, obviously there are a few here and there dotted around who are not part of that whole disgusting scene. But it's not very many. See, this all has to do with the government, and the way with identity politics and all, systematically criminal behavior in the gay community becomes almost universal -- even while certain crimes are simply never prosecuted. Have a criminal police force -- and you end up with a criminal culture. Certain queen bees who are criminals call the shots -- and everyone falls in line. 

Same thing as with rape victims, male or female. The female rape victims who get ganged up on are ones who have been designated targets by various queen bees -- who, in today's world, are women, or if not women, at least women play a very important and crucial role in covering it up and aiding and abetting the perpetrators. 

The feelings of utter disgust come in when you realize, it's not you, it's them. Like, ok I never needed to convince anyone I was a desirable person. Nobody ever thought badly of me. It wasn't that. They knew the truth -- and did it anyway. 

That, by the way, is something I remember this woman who counseled me a lot when I was going through the worst of this abuse told me. She kept telling me "they know -- but they do it anyway. That's terrible. You need to believe in yourself." And she also told me, she knew all about what it was about -- because a lot of the same kinds of abusive things done to me had been done to her when she was younger. And, I ought to note, it seems she must have had no choice but to cover it up, like a lot of people. 

What's interesting, though, with the gay community is, a whole lot of it is just one of those "which way the wind is blowing" thing. Everyone is calculating, and the "thing to do" these days (aka, the way to treat me these days) is to treat me like shit, but in a passive aggressive way rather than the more blatant kinds of abuse people engaged in before. However, the wind could easily starts blowing in a different direction, and then all the same people, instead of shunning me, would start falling over themselves trying to placate me. In fact, when I first hired a lawyer, that's exactly what happened. I got deluged with emails from gay men all over, from morning til night, all fawning on me, sucking up to me, all wanting to get the opportunity to placate me with sexual favors and etc. And I had to turn every one of them down, because literally I had had too many close calls by then and, by that time, I knew if I wasn't able to get a lawyer involved, I would end up dead. Or, even if I didn't end up dead, they weren't going to stop the abuse until I did something about it. 

I think it was a few hundred people who were all trying to placate me with sexual favors in hopes of dissuading me from hiring an attorney, and then when it became clear I wasn't going to be dissuaded, just as suddenly they all cease any and all such temporary interest. Which, in and of itself, is just another example of the utter sickening morals of the gay community. And, of course, there are other times when I've gone through similar periods of being sucked up to like that for awhile, only to have it all cease later on. But, that's the thing about it. It's so fake and so superficial. No desire to be genuine. Just calculate how you treat someone according to what way the wind is blowing and what you calculate is the best way to use someone in the moment.

[QUOTE=simeon the crushed;134953]as to the original post i think among women there is a sense that if a man isn't with a woman  he's not 'under control' , women alone can claim they're empowered and say things like ' i need a man as much as a fish needs a bicycle' but it seems very often men are seen as 'broken women'. that without a woman a man is a lesser and incomplete being, in general as well i think there is an air of suspicion around a man who is straight but has no interest in being with a woman, even one night stands, the only explanation people can think of is that he must be a 'loser' rather than the idea that he just might have other pursuits in his life or have a higher calling than just procreation.

or it could be that he's been there, done that and has now moved on to a different stage in his life where he feels satisfied to simply treat women as friends and nothing more, I'm in this category, i've loved, lost, learned and i now have other things i feel are more worthwhile to pursue, i think there still is a prevailing idea that men constantly 'want' women and that men are just 'broken women' and need a woman there to 'fix' them.

even 400 years ago coffee houses were being banned because they were men only and it was seen as 'seedy' and of 'ill repute' for there to be establishments where men can just exist in a place without women and so there were campaigners to get coffee houses banned not because they saw coffee as bad but because men were spending time there and not with women! the writings of the time reflect this sentiment, if there isn't a woman involved in a man's life then there must be something suspicious about him, I'm starting to feel this is the attitude my female mental health workers have, that i need persistent female 'poking' to better myself[/QUOTE]

I remember talking to someone who studied American History, who did say one of the "principles" Ameirca was founded on -- and which was very prevalent in early American history -- was the notion that women were more virtuous than men (Tocqueville would have used the phrase more "industrious") and that men needed women to control and "civilize" them.

I think, in our modern society, it's all run amuck the degree with which women go -- no, they don't do it on their own, they are controlled and "deployed" by society to do it -- to control men, to manipulate men, to use men and then throw them out like soiled gloves and have them figure out the hard way after the fact that they were suckers being used for utility by people who didn't love them one iota -- and it's gone to such extremes, it's off the wall now.

Read the book "Hitlers Furies" and notice how the author claims that women -- and not any sort of woman, Germany's "feminist class" -- were deeply involved in the holocaust, so much so that the men who got involved in killing and exterminating were "showing off" for women -- and you need to understand, I don't think such an efficient regime of extermination could have happened with men working with men alone. Women needed to be there to be far more obedient than men would have been on their own, to enforce far more conformity and following of the rules -- adherence to the dictates of higher authority, which is something men are notorious for not being able to be made to do on their own quite the same way women can be -- and for ensuring the kind of discipline that it took. Not only through moral influence -- but through the threat women posed as potential snitches on those men who didn't follow the rules, potential "falsely accuse men of rape" if they don't conform to the regime's extermination agenda, and the like. Because, that's the thing. Have an all male environment, and the men tend to form a camaraderie with each other that mitigates against the idea of any man involved with them breaking ranks and snitching them out to higher authority. Throw a few women into the mix -- you can guarantee they will ally with 'higher authority' against the peer group, everyone will know they can't trust women not to snitch, and everyone will know how carefully they have to follow the rules, just because women are watching. 

And, in modern society, "the rules" are always evil. "The rules" are always some version of "exterminate and keep quiet about it" at the same time. I don't think any holocaust was ever perpetrated by any regime that did not very carefully and consciously manipulate the gender politics in such a manner so as to ensure the men involved were controlled and watched over by obedient women, who were all snitches. I don't think it could be possible to pull it off otherwise. Those regimes who conducted holocausts first of all did it deliberately, secondly did it on behalf of the west and usually on behalf of the western business world and oil establishment, and they all applied and followed the formula that these business elites knew worked, wanted applied, and had the necessary money out there with which to pay off elites, often after disposing of whatever landed aristocracies these countries originally had which could have potentially resisted such totalitarianism. And, needless to say, no holocaust was ever perpetrated which was not to the benefit of the international western business world, which did not in some way help to thin out a target population in an area rich in natural resources that these businessmen wanted to make a large profit over exploiting. There was a formula which they applied, a governing formula, and once they figured out it worked, they kept applying it again and again.

Oh and remember one other thing. The "men shaming men who aren't popular with women" is a misleading headline. It isn't about some men not being popular with women -- it's not personal. It's about how certain individuals are selected as targets for abuse and for the social ostracism and social isolation that is necessary for everyone to participate in, so criminals can abuse that person. 

The types of abuse that go on in this society, particularly the type of abuse that's gendered, include all sorts of crimes that nobody can get away with unless the target is properly isolated so he or she can be set up in situations where, crimes are committed, and there are no witnesses who can be trusted to tell the truth, instead there are witnesses who can be trusted to cover things up. 

Catharine MacKinnon talks about it here:

[url]http://www.makers.com/moments/turning-point[/url]

It's the systematic sexual and other kinds of abuse that goes on which she is talking about. Notice how she first talks about women being abused by men they are in relationships with and then by (pause) men they are acquainted with? I think she was originally going to say other WOMEN they are acquainted with, because that's what she was thinking and that's what she experienced, but changed the word "women" to "men" because she has to conform to the politically correct distortions of reality or she will suffer consequences. 

What happens with the sexual abuse is, ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT AND ALL MEN ARE LIKE THAT if you are a target. Every single one of them will participate in the crime in some way, or at least assent to it. They will do their part to ensure you are taken advantage of, even if the role they play is merely by being passive, merely by systematically shunning you.

But, that's the thing. It's totally not personal and has nothing to do with what they think of you or what kind of individual you are. In so many cases, if people shun you, it is solely because you have, for whatever arbitrary reason, been selected for our society's version of a human sacrifice -- and that's why they do it. And no other reason. And, one of the most important things to understand is how much it doesn't reflect on you, if you are a victim of it. It reflects on them, those who are doing it.

[QUOTE=dmschlom;134911]Read the end part of the conversation, what I wrote. It says a lot about how many people get involved in systematically manipulating someone. 

[quote]  Remove‪Damian Schloming‪ in any case - it is far more than just personal. The despicable evil things done to individuals are part of a strategy that helps large corporations make huge profits -- who then pay off enough people so as to perpetuate it. Those cops who are cruel and abuse people, and their hangers on, just think they are better than everyone else, privileged people who have managed to land themselves a privileged position in a corrupt evil system.1 hr · Like‪

            Remove‪Damian Schloming‪ I do have one question for Justin -- and that is why doesn't he have the balls to behave like a man about it? All this passive aggressive stuff like treating an actual rape victim you are related you rottenly, and then going on TV later on and issuing a bunch of platitudes, even while blocking your ex wife -- that's all in all very passive aggressive bullshitty even while trying your best to get accolades for your behavior, as well as sympathy as well, as if you are a victim yourself.35 mins · Like‪

            Remove‪Damian Schloming‪ that's sort of like "what can I milk this all for." And, guess what? I think you knew there was some sort of plan for that man to rape your wife -- and I would not be surprised if you deliberately provoked a fight with her in order to provoke her into spending the night in that house alone, where she could be raped. I know, every single time anything like that happened to me, every person involved very deliberately set it up and it was pre-meditated. How do we know you did not court her and marry her SOLELY for the purpose of arranging for her to be raped like that, in return for whatever quid pro quo? Because tons of gay guys played EXACTLY the same game with me -- for self advancement. Faking romantic interest, so they could benefit from putting me in positions where I could be abused. And, again, that is also part of a larger pattern that occurred not only with me.31 mins · Like‪

            Remove‪Damian Schloming‪ As far as i'm concerned -- you had a back room deal with Alliano. Cuz everyone who faked romantic interest in me -- and then arranged for me to be abused -- did. And what is so special about you that your behavior didn't follow that pattern? I notice, also, if you look on A Voice For Men website, you will learn of discussions with men who have had WOMEN do that to them -- women connected to the corrupt LEGAL SYSTEM fake romantic interest, then manipulate them and set them up to be abused by the system. In other words, in this country, that sort of behavior is widespread. It's what insiders of a certain criminal class connected to the legal system and savvy in the legal system do to outsiders, for a reward.28 mins · Like‪

            Remove‪Damian Schloming‪ Btw -- I'm not talking about anyone I knew having a connection with Alliano specifically -- but I'm talking about the tons of guys who faked interest in me, all turning out to have various deals with either criminal types or businessman types, and doing it quite deliberately as part of a quid pro quo. and EVERYTHING about this case tells me -- no way did the cops not know. The cops are criminals too.26 mins · Like‪

            Remove‪Damian Schloming‪ and, way to go -- fake being a victim and it's all about your victimhood and how your superiors treated you insensitively. Except, that's the problem -- all these self indulgent faux victims who are really self seeking criminals faking it all, in order to hide and be excused for their manipulativeness.6 mins · Like‪

                        Remove‪Damian Schloming‪ now, yeah the system is corrupt, you have to have balls to stand up to it, be willing to stand up for what's right even if it means pay a cost -- which is quite different from feigning victimhood so you can get your pretty face on TV, even while you have the real victim on block and also safely tucked away out of sight. Get your face on TV --and shake down more funds for "the system." And get on TV and make money and get all sorts of opportunities, with everyone saying how wonderful you are -- even while they shun the real victim who is perpetually "persona non grata" in that fake superficial world of suck ups and fakes you inhabit.3 mins[/quote]

Notice how I told Justin that I believe he knew his wife was going to get raped and that he was involved in some pre-meditated plan? To be honest, it may or may not be true. It's possible he didn't have control over things and other people planned this out without his assent, or it's possible he married this woman in order to do these criminals a favor, and this was all a deliberate set up. Actually, to be honest, it's highly probable. There are so many individuals out there who will do this, and to them it's like climbing the ladder. It's how you get ahead. You play the game. Those who don't play the game -- they are little people who aren't big shots, aren't "one of the cool kids."  

Here is just one example of someone I confronted who did something similar to me. Or, let me put it this way, the chances that "it was just a coincidence" and he wasn't involved the way all those other guys are is very close to zero. Basically, for awhile almost every gay men I'd talk to online would go and, the way it would be, everyone would shun me -- except for the one person who would be willing to meet up with me, who would turn out to be a criminal who had a whole pre-meditated plan to take advantage of me. Basically, everyone got involved in the crimes committed against me. Even if it was just to manipulate me into a situation where I could be taken advantage of. And some of these crimes included things that left me with brain damage, for instance, really hard core evil abuse. 

Now when I confront these guys, a lot of them respond in a way that's like how lawyers talk -- notice how I called him on that. As for this man, I remember he chatted me up for a long time, always had excuses, but he had certain ambitions he told me about -- which I now realize, that's why he spent so much time talking to me and manipulating me. Notice how he pretends he doesn't know who I am at first. Oh wait, sorry, that part is a previous part that wasn't in the print screen. But it's bullshit for him to pretend he doesn't recognize me. It's how he covers up that he is much too aware of who I am (and how helping others take advantage of me can help him), and then notice how when I first confront him on what he did, he takes forever to figure out what to say, and then when I confront him on that, he goes and says he is scared of me, etc. Well he sure didn't seem scared of me before, and there really is nothing that ought to have changed, other than me wising up. That, indeed, is one of the big problems. Too many people were totally the opposite of scared of me -- and, instead, very eager for the rewards they could reap out of participating in crimes committed against me so horrible, there is no way you can be scared of someone and go think you can do something like that to them. 

[url]http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/image/159364690[/url]

So that's why I get how in the MRA movement they scoff at the saying "not all women are like that." And insist "all women are like that" except for a few exceptions. More accurate, though, would be to say nearly all women and nearly all men are like that. Will aid and abet crime and other sociopathic behavior. Because that's the cultural norm in this country.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=dmschlom;134907]In my experience, both men and women do this. The whole population gets involved and, actually, much of what goes on which feminists refer to as rape culture is implicated in it. Or is the same. It's called organized gang stalking. 

What you have to understand is, some of the feminists who are alleged rape advocates and opposed to rape are actually criminals who perpetrate rape culture. They want to control the anti-rape movement in such a way so that they can keep the status quo the way it is. That's why some people in the Men's Rights Movement have a problem with feminists -- yet, at the same time have so many similar complaints to many marginalized rape victims whose stories never get told. Including women. 

Look at these stories of these women. Do you think they DON'T have a problem with feminism? They have just as bad a problem with feminism. In a way they have a worse problem with feminism, inasmuch as the problem is so bad, they have been very effectively silenced and forced to go along with a fake agenda. The fact that we don't know what kind of problem they have with feminism is, actually, a sign they have it much worse. 

It's only that they are too browbeaten to do anything but go along with it. It's like Catharine MacKinnon who argued that many feminists have chosen to become house slaves and work for their masters. 

[url]http://damian-schloming.squarespace.com/interesting-collaboration-with-other-female-rape-victims-and-their-perspectives/[/url]

That feminist who said you are harming women by making a big deal out of hatred for men is the same type of feminist who would also argue that the rape victims whose stories I document in my website would be "Harming women" by refusing to cover up the complicity of female criminals in their troubles, and therefore in the interests of protecting women, their stories must be selectively censored by the New York Times with all politically incorrect realities excised from the reporting.

Furthermore, for her to say that is nothing more than a blatant backhanded way of her saying "it is in my self interest for me to not support your struggle against injustice, and it is in my self interest to kick you while you are down as part of my campaign to suck up to the establishment and get brownie points from them for being a good soldier, and you know what? I am going to think of myself and fuck you over, tee hee hee."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Mequa;134903]I've been there, on the receiving end of it. Disgust is too mild a term. I know what it feels like to hate another human being so strongly that I would wish for their death.

As a man, when women have done that to me, I've been shamed as "weak" and a "pussy" for, well, not having a thicker skin, not taking it in my stride, not shaking it off, and not putting my big boy pants on for not shutting my mouth about the behaviour of women who have treated me in exactly that way. You know, for when someone decides to string me along in a manipulative way, prey on my genuine kindness, then slam the knife in my back and gloat about having got away with it.

While painting me as the bad guy who has just got what is coming to him somehow, who clearly hates women and has mommy issues for daring to criticise the behaviour of a female.

And I just got told by a feminist in a chatroom that I am harming women by making a big deal about hatred of men...[/QUOTE]

Saturday March 7, 2015

[QUOTE=Maxx;134346]
My personal issue with all these MGTOW InCels is they share almost none of my core beliefs about anything. Im loathed to self identify as member of a movement (MGTOW) that's being flooded with all these bitter unfucked Elliot Rodgers types...who actually seem to think making any sort of effort to better yourself in life is 'selling out' or pussy worshiping, who think women are wired 'wrong', and that withholding from them a dick they don't want anyway is the first step in reprogramming their minds...

MGTOW guys who think they are part of some sort of collective class action and on some sort of mass marriage strike that'll bring about some sort of MRA revolution in western culture.

Personally I find it hard to square my own beliefs with the beliefs of these kinda guys, or to embrace the idea that I'm part of the same movement they are. They are the reason why I'm increasingly inclined cast off the MGTOW label and let them have it.[/QUOTE]

Hold on one minute. 

The whole problem with "making any effort to better yourself in life," is, we live in a particular kind of system in this country where, when they want to use you for whatever utilitarian purpose they have, it's all about using incentives to make you jump through hoops. Personal incentives. Like nobody will be your friend because you are being used. And that's like, ok I don't want any friends, if this is what people are like. 

Except, recall, nobody is going to do that to you unless they need you in some way. They will treat you like shit, all as part of a big bluff designed to convince you you are nothing and have no choice but to go along with them. But it's just bluff. They need people to call them on it.

But, I think above all, you need to do a better job articulating what you mean when you refer to the "toxic nature of women." First of all, I don't think this toxicity is limited to women but, rather, permeates our whole society. It is one where people live according to such massive lies, lead people on emotionally and employ any number of other manipulative and dishonest tactics, only to discard them in the most sickening sociopathic ways, so much so that when you realize it and understand it, the amount of disgust you feel over the behavior you understand is just mind boggling. 

Except, more people need to put their foot down and just refuse to go along with it. Nobody should be buying into or cooperating with a system that is fundamentally immoral like that if they don't want to. The system got that way in the first place because of people who think they have no choice but to go along with it. But I don't believe in that.

Furthermore, another problem with this whole system that engages in immoral behavior -- and then wants their victims to come crawling back to them and pretend they didn't do what they did is, fundamentally what's going on is a bunch of bullshit and a bunch of bluff. I'm reminded of these feminists who get raped, horribly abused by crooked cops and by other feminists, and who then voluntarily agree to cover up the truth, distort the truth, and push the same feminist agenda responsible for their horrible victimization -- by people who say things like "you can never fix what they did to you in the past -- but if you don't go along with their agenda and help strengthen this evil system, they will destroy the rest of your life too, so do what they want you to do, so you can salvage the remaining years you have left."

Shouldn't more people go and just put their foot down and say "you are evil, and I'm not playing ball with this?" It's obvious, women won't do it. That's why our current system loves women and wants to hobble men as much as possible. Because there are men out there who WILL do that. And that's a threat to the system.

The more the better.

More importantly, it's about being true to yourself. 

Respect is earned. 

Disrespect is earned. 

If you have no respect for others because they earned your disrespect, then you should behave accordingly.